The Instigator
Noah25
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Deport Illegal Immigrants who have Committed a Crime in the US?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2008 Category: News
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,842 times Debate No: 3329
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (9)

 

Noah25

Pro

I am for this because people in our country who have done something illegal should absolutely be returned to there home country and be prosecuted there. I believe this would be good so that we could lower the population in our jails and also keep illegalise out!
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

I'm assuming you are speaking of a crime other than the immigration itself, am I right?

In any case, this is a suicidal idea. When someone commits an objective crime (i.e. murder, rape, theft), just "deporting" them to whatever place they came from won't help. You know why? Because that place (mostly mexico) doesn't punish criminals much, it punishes innocents instead.

If someone commits a crime, the proper course of action is to ensure they do not commit it against you again. That entails killing them.

If the thing they did does not merit killing them, it should not be considered a crime, because in essence all law entails killing it's violator, if they act in a manner consistent with pursuing the forbidden course of action.
Debate Round No. 1
Noah25

Pro

I think thats very interesting then I believe we should prosectute them here and they should be punished. Then they should be deported once they have finnished serving there time (if they do leave). I also believe they should be documented and if they ever return again then something needs to happen.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

I thought you wanted to lower prison populations? sticking them in jail and creating massive bureaucracies to monitor documents will never accomplish that.

And since double jeopardy is illegal you are contradicting your original stance... is that conceding?
Debate Round No. 2
Noah25

Pro

Noah25 forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Forfeits, as it happen, are an admission that you do not have an argument to post. Since you initiated this argument, this is foolish of you- you ought not start arguments you haven't the material for.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"How did the government corrupt the law in such a manner?
"

The purpose of the law is to protect individual rights. Not to deny them. Outlawing immigration is an assault on individual rights, as such, the law is corrupted by it.

"
Why not executed? Because we shouldn't pay to have illegals executed in the United States. They should be deported and then given the death sentence in their own countries."

Their own countries do not wish them to be dead, whether they have committed objective crimes or not. They will not carry out the sentence. If you want someone dead, you are responsible for arranging for the deed and justifying their

"
I wish I had the financial burden costs that illegals are putting on the United States. It is extraordinary.
"
That is a socialist premise. Are you a socialist? If not, there is no such thing as a "financial burden of the united states" perpetrated by immigrants. If you mean welfare/health care stuff, that is perpetrated by congress. It is not the immigrant's fault we have socialists in congress. It is the voters. If you mean wages, that is not a "burden of the united states," it is a trade of a value by a private company for something they see as more valuable.

You often claim to oppose socialism, now act like it. If you outlaw hiring a particular class of people, you are in essence socializing the employment process.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
How did the government corrupt the law in such a manner?

Why not executed? Because we shouldn't pay to have illegals executed in the United States. They should be deported and then given the death sentence in their own countries.

I wish I had the financial burden costs that illegals are putting on the United States. It is extraordinary.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Look, the bottom line is that we've pretty given these illegal aliens enough grace to stay in our amazing country. "

Just like we've been giving you enough grace to stay in our amazing country.

"They already are criminals because they entered the country illegally."
Or, the government is a criminal for corrupting the law in such a manner.

"illegals commit a serious crime (murder, rape, kidnapping, etc.), they sure as hell should be deported. "

Why not executed, as I advocated in this debate? read more carefully.

"Why are we defending criminals who broke the law SEVERELY two times and have made our country less safe?
"
First, only the second makes our country in any way "less safe." Second, I'm advocating executing people who commit such crimes as murder, rape, kidnapping, and such. That's not defending them.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
Look, the bottom line is that we've pretty given these illegal aliens enough grace to stay in our amazing country. They already are criminals because they entered the country illegally. If illegals commit a serious crime (murder, rape, kidnapping, etc.), they sure as hell should be deported. Why are we defending criminals who broke the law SEVERELY two times and have made our country less safe?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
Your metaphor simply does not apply. I am not stating that it is illegal for a person to be a person ("there is no moral difference between outlawing tangerineman's existence (or yours) and outlawing an immigrant's."). But trespassing IS illegal."

Only on PRIVATE property. Entering a country, since a country is not property, cannot properly be considered trespassing, or illegal. There can be no right to forbid people from entering unowned land.

"
OUR, yes. I actually do say that I am a part of this nation. Those who vote are part of this nation"
Democracy is jackasses being ruled by jackals. And "being a part of something" is not owning it. I am a part of humanity, do I own humanity?

"
Also, you have the cause and effect relationship between the economy and the illegal immigrant confused. Just because the system is flawed doesn't mean it is moral or ok to take advantage of the system. If your front door was unlocked, and I walked in, I'm breaking the law. The door was unlocked, therefore I can walk in can't I? No, I'm still breaking the law."

That's not an apt analogy, and the law is not what makes walking in wrong. The right of property is.

An apt analogy would be, if someone handed you money, is it your fault they stole it? Especially when the person they stole it from also receives stolen money from the same party? End the theft, not the bystander who happened to get side effects.

"Nowhere does prohibiting a person from trespassing infringe on that person's humanity. "
It does if it isn't really trespassing because it isn't really property.
Posted by tangerineman91 9 years ago
tangerineman91
It has nothing to do with the moral character of a person. I'm not saying that illegal immigrants are more likely to commit crimes. Its just that the crime rates go down when there are less illegal immigrants. That most certainly affects the security of those who legally live in the U.S.

Your metaphor simply does not apply. I am not stating that it is illegal for a person to be a person ("there is no moral difference between outlawing tangerineman's existence (or yours) and outlawing an immigrant's."). But trespassing IS illegal. The argument is not an ethical one. Nowhere does prohibiting a person from trespassing infringe on that person's humanity. After all, you wouldn't want me trespassing on your property. You wouldn't want me to use your bathroom and eat food out of your refrigerator. And when you demand that I leave, nowhere does that indicate that I am less of a person because I can't trespass.

OUR, yes. I actually do say that I am a part of this nation. Those who vote are part of this nation. I am a part of this economy. Those who pay their taxes are part of this economy. The economy is occasionally regulated by the government (Modern Keynesian Economics), and guess who votes for Congressmen, Representatives, and Presidents. Americans! Therefore I would say that the existence of the economy is tied to taxpayers.

Also, you have the cause and effect relationship between the economy and the illegal immigrant confused. Just because the system is flawed doesn't mean it is moral or ok to take advantage of the system. If your front door was unlocked, and I walked in, I'm breaking the law. The door was unlocked, therefore I can walk in can't I? No, I'm still breaking the law.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
statistics do not apply to ethics.

"
The metaphor you used has very little relevance to the illegal immigrant topic. There are just too many differences to be comparable.
"

You already proved you didn't understand the metaphor, so any claims you make about it are bunk. There is no moral difference between a person on one side of the border and a person on another. It is not the immigrant's fault we have a socialistic welfare state that happens to help them when they come, that is the democrat's fault, and to a lesser extent the republican's :D
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Thats a pretty stupid retort, there is a difference between coming into a country Illegally and having a name on a website...wow I feel dumber"

Straw man. I did not say being CALLED tangerineman, I said BEING tangerineman, i.e. tangerineman being the person he is. Freedom of movement is necessary to human existence as such (because human existence requires free application of one's mind to one's actions), there is no moral difference between outlawing tangerineman's existence (or yours) and outlawing an immigrant's.

"affect our economy or national security"

OUR? You do not own the economy or the nation. And yes, you being you affects the economy, and national security, just as much as immigrants being immigrants

"
The vast majority of illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. Yet they still utilize the infrastructure that is paid for by U.S. citizens."

Which demonstrates the problems with the infrastructure's method of payment, not with illegal immigration.

"Say an illegal immigrant is having a baby. That person is taken to the hospital. Bam, there's a whole lot of costs. Doctor's costs, hospital costs, ambulance costs. Who pays for it? Most illegal immigrants are incapable of paying those costs. So who does the hospital charge to make up the difference? U.S. citizens.
"
Say a poor U.S. citizen does the same thing. Wham, same result. There is no moral difference between welfare to citiens and welfare to noncitizens, as "US citizens" is not one undifferentiated whole. This demonstrates, again, a problem with the means of payment (the welfare state), not a problem with the immigration.

"Also, consider crime. San Diego has a border fence near it. After that border fence was built, crime and drug trafficking in San Diego decreased by a significant margin. Why? Because illegal immigrants couldn't get to the city as easily."
U.S. citzens commit crime too. If you are to condemn the whole for a part, you damn yourself as well as immigrants, because
Posted by tangerineman91 9 years ago
tangerineman91
No, but for a different reason. Having a name does not materially affect our economy or national security. Being a tangerineman doesn't mean I don't pay taxes. I would still be a citizen of the United State. I will have pledged my allegience to the U.S. Flag. I can be drafted into the army.

The vast majority of illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. Yet they still utilize the infrastructure that is paid for by U.S. citizens. One of the reasons why the cost of healthcare is rising is due to illegal immigrants. Say an illegal immigrant is having a baby. That person is taken to the hospital. Bam, there's a whole lot of costs. Doctor's costs, hospital costs, ambulance costs. Who pays for it? Most illegal immigrants are incapable of paying those costs. So who does the hospital charge to make up the difference? U.S. citizens.

Also, consider crime. San Diego has a border fence near it. After that border fence was built, crime and drug trafficking in San Diego decreased by a significant margin. Why? Because illegal immigrants couldn't get to the city as easily.

The metaphor you used has very little relevance to the illegal immigrant topic. There are just too many differences to be comparable.
Posted by TheConservative 9 years ago
TheConservative
Thats a pretty stupid retort, there is a difference between coming into a country Illegally and having a name on a website...wow I feel dumber
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Xera 9 years ago
Xera
Noah25Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by lorca 9 years ago
lorca
Noah25Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Noah25Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Noah25 9 years ago
Noah25
Noah25Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ecstatica 9 years ago
ecstatica
Noah25Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by HCPwns95 9 years ago
HCPwns95
Noah25Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
Noah25Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by zakkuchan 9 years ago
zakkuchan
Noah25Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Noah25Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03